Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2022 20:52:54 +0200
On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 8:45 PM Mark de Wever via SG16 <sg16_at_[hidden]>
wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> > The link to D2572R0 above is a live link. The revision currently there is
> > unchanged from our prior review. I expect to complete updates in the next
> > day or so and will send an update and change log when done. Please try to
> > supply any wording feedback on the mailing list before the meeting; I
> hope
> > we won't need to spend much more time on this paper.
>
> Some feedback based on the latest changes.
>
> I noticed you use the word specifier, for example in "fill specifier".
> In the current wording most places use option instead of specifier.
>
> The notable exception is http://eel.is/c++draft/format.string.std#3
> which uses "align specifier". I would suggest to change "specifier"
> to "option" in the new wording and fix "align specifier" as drive-by
> fix. The generic term "format specifiers" is used in more places.
>
> A small suggestion for Note 3
> If the estimated width of the formatted argument <ins>matches or
> </ins>exceeds the field width, then both the alignment and width
> options have no effect
>
> I'm still a bit concerned that we don't really specify what we mean with
> a character for the fill character. Looking at the number of options
> that have been discussed in the past, and the fact we want to move this
> paper forward, I would suggest not to change the wording but instead
> modify Example 2
>
> string s5 = format("{:6d}", c); // value of s5 is " 120"
> string s6 = format("{:6}", true); // value of s6 is "true "
> string s7 = format("{:*>6}", "12345678"); // value of s7 is "12345678"
> <ins>string s8 = format("{:🤡^6}", 'x'); // value of s8 is
> "🤡🤡x🤡🤡🤡"</ins>
>
> This also demonstrates the expected width of the fill character is
> assumed to be 1.
>
This should say codepoint rather than character (as you said, we need to
reflect the lengthy discussions and subsequent consensus in the wording)
>
>
> Mark
> --
> SG16 mailing list
> SG16_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg16
>
wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> > The link to D2572R0 above is a live link. The revision currently there is
> > unchanged from our prior review. I expect to complete updates in the next
> > day or so and will send an update and change log when done. Please try to
> > supply any wording feedback on the mailing list before the meeting; I
> hope
> > we won't need to spend much more time on this paper.
>
> Some feedback based on the latest changes.
>
> I noticed you use the word specifier, for example in "fill specifier".
> In the current wording most places use option instead of specifier.
>
> The notable exception is http://eel.is/c++draft/format.string.std#3
> which uses "align specifier". I would suggest to change "specifier"
> to "option" in the new wording and fix "align specifier" as drive-by
> fix. The generic term "format specifiers" is used in more places.
>
> A small suggestion for Note 3
> If the estimated width of the formatted argument <ins>matches or
> </ins>exceeds the field width, then both the alignment and width
> options have no effect
>
> I'm still a bit concerned that we don't really specify what we mean with
> a character for the fill character. Looking at the number of options
> that have been discussed in the past, and the fact we want to move this
> paper forward, I would suggest not to change the wording but instead
> modify Example 2
>
> string s5 = format("{:6d}", c); // value of s5 is " 120"
> string s6 = format("{:6}", true); // value of s6 is "true "
> string s7 = format("{:*>6}", "12345678"); // value of s7 is "12345678"
> <ins>string s8 = format("{:🤡^6}", 'x'); // value of s8 is
> "🤡🤡x🤡🤡🤡"</ins>
>
> This also demonstrates the expected width of the fill character is
> assumed to be 1.
>
This should say codepoint rather than character (as you said, we need to
reflect the lengthy discussions and subsequent consensus in the wording)
>
>
> Mark
> --
> SG16 mailing list
> SG16_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg16
>
Received on 2022-06-07 18:53:05